Loading...
PC 2014 06 17 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Maryam Yusuf, and Dan Campion MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: th Travis Simon 23110 – 320 Street, LeCenter, MN 56057 Mike Langer 30676 County Road 24, Sleepy Eye, MN 56085 Tim Paine 2345 Fawn Hill Court Dick Glover 2357 Fawn Hill Court M. Marcotte 7240 Galpin Boulevard I-Fei Tsu 9210 Ellendale Lane Jeff Schoenwetter Homestead Partners Theresa Bentz 7280 Galpin Boulevard Marlene Bentz 7300 Galpin Boulevard st Wendy Peterson Born 555 West 1 Street, Waconia Charlie Wiemerslage Sather-Berquist OATH OF OFFICE: Chairman Aller administered the Oath of Office to Dan Campion and welcomed him to the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING: 9111 AUDUBON ROAD: REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR APPROXIMATELY 40,000 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL TO BE PLACED ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL (A2) AND LOCATED AT 9111 AUDUBON ROAD. APPLICANT: MATHIOWETZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. OWNER: GAYLE DEGLER, PLANNING CASE 2014-17. Fauske: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. Tonight we have an Interim Use Permit application for the property located at 9111 Audubon Road, Planning Case 2014-17. The applicant is Mathiowetz Construction. The property owner is Mr. Gayle Degler. The property is located on the southeast corner of Lyman Boulevard and Audubon Road. It’s currently being used for agricultural purposes. An Interim Use Permit is required whenever grading exceeds 1,000 cubic yards. The Lyman Boulevard project between Audubon and Powers is currently under construction and the applicant in this instance is the contractor for the project and proposes to place 40,000 cubic yards of fill in the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the Lyman Boulevard project. This graphic was also included in the packet and it shows the existing and proposed conditions within the site. The area in yellow indicates the area that they would be placing some fill. This has been adjusted based on staff’s comments with regards to limiting the grading within the drip line of the trees so this graphic has been modified by the applicant. But this just shows an indication of the existing condition shown in the light purple and the pink and the proposed condition shown in blue. There is an area of concentrated flow to Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 the east that’s caused some erosion issues in the past so the proposed fill on the site actually helps to alleviate that situation. As I had stated before there’s a, the erosion issue currently on the site would be alleviated with the proposed fill on the site. Also stated that there’s a drip line along the Bluff Creek primary zone that the grading has to stay out of. As well with the proposal staff recommends that an erosion control escrow be provided. That number is included on page, page 3 of the staff report with the recommendation on page 4 and it’s a low dollar amount than what we’ve seen in the past and the reason is, is because the applicant, as I mentioned is the contractor for the Lyman Boulevard project so there are many securities in place for that project so we simply just had a simple erosion control escrow for this proposal with the bulk of the security being taken through the Lyman Boulevard project. As well we recommend that the IUP to end with the substantial completion of the Lyman Boulevard project. At this point the staff has provided a recommendation for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council to approve the Interim Use Permit to allow the site grading for approximately 40,000 cubic yards of fill subject to the conditions of approval and adopt the Findings of Fact in the staff report. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions that the commission might have at this time. Aller: So the new grading will hopefully stop any further erosion? Fauske: Correct. Aller: And in fact it looks to me like it would increase the filtration so we get better filtration of the actual ground waters that comes in. Fauske: It slows the, it slows the ground water down. Or the water down as it goes through there. They’ve eliminated the area of concentrated flow. They’ve created a sheet flow so instead of channeling it to one particular location it sheet flows across the entire area that’s being filled. Aller: Great. Any other question from commissioners? Would the applicant like to come forward? I-Fei Tsu: Is it still agricultural use of that area? Aller: Sir are you a member of the public or are you the applicant? I-Fei Tsu: I’m a resident. Aller: A resident, okay. We’re going to open up the public hearing in a second here and then we’ll entertain any questions you have. I-Fei Tsu: Alright. Aller: Great, thank you. So does the applicant wish to make any statement at this time? Okay, seeing nobody come forward we’ll go ahead and open the public hearing. Sir if you’d come forward. State your name and address for the record and then you can speak for or against it or ask questions. Come on forward so we can hear you for the record. I-Fei Tsu: My name is I-Fei Tsu and I live in 9210 Ellendale Lane. Aller: Welcome Mr. Tsu. I-Fei Tsu: Chanhassen and I just want to make sure it still remain agricultural use after the grading. Is that correct understanding? 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 Fauske: I can answer. They’re not proposing to change the land use associated with the site. The proposal is simply to place some fill within the existing property. I-Fei Tsu: Okay, just putting, okay. Fauske: Yeah. Aller: So if it was to change in the future there would be another hearing on this. Any additional individuals wishing to come forward to speak either for or against or opportunity to ask questions. Tim Paine: Tim Paine, 2345 Fawn Hill Court. I’m actually here for another issue but I was just an idle question is that when the fill is brought in, where is it coming from, what’s it’s quality and what compaction will it be brought to? To insure that what you were saying that the erosion control was actually better than what you have right now. Fauske: The fill is coming from the Lyman Boulevard construction project. At this point since it’s not proposed to be supporting any kind of foundation of that matter, they don’t have any compaction per se as far as required bearing loads. Perhaps if the applicant wishes to elaborate on this he’s certainly welcomed to do so but it’s simply to compact it to insure that it won’t erode away to the best of their ability. They’ll track the slope in order to try to break up some of the flow conditions while vegetation establishes. Aller: Any additional questions? Okay, seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing on the matter and open it up for commissioner comments. We’re not substantially changing the property. Looks like we’re going to at least make an effort to stop the erosion. There’s a NPDES permit for Lyman so we should be covered there. I’ll entertain any motions. Undestad: I’ll make a motion then. Recommend that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit to allow a site grading of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of fill subject to conditions of approval and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tennyson: I’ll second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that approve the interim use permit to permit site grading, plans prepared by the City Council Mathiowetz Construction Company, dated May 2, 2014, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.Grading must be kept out of the Bluff Creek primary zone. The plans shall be revised such that no fill is placed beyond the drip line of the wooded area. Erosion control fencing shall be placed at the edge of the drip line and the topsoil berm uphill from the silt fence. 2.The SWPPP must identify the Bluff Creek impairment for turbidity and the location of Bluff Creek. 3.Silt fence shall be installed and inspected prior to beginning grading operations. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 4.Silt fence shall be installed using metal t-posts. 5.An erosion control escrow in the amount of $1,500.00 shall be provided prior to commencing grading operation. 6.The interim use permit shall end with the substantial completion of the Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18) project from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: VISTAS AT BENTZ FARMS: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW & MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR; AND PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCES CREATING 15 LOTS, 4 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON 25.65 ACRES LOCATED AT 7280 AND 7300 GALPIN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: HOMESTEAD PARTNERS, LLC, PLANNING CASE 2014-18. Aller: And we’ve received the report and before we get going on that we have received a letter dated June 12, 2014 from Homestead Partners signed by Tom Strohm, the Project Manager of Land Development and we just received this. We’ve done the best we can to read it and incorporate it and we’d love to hear about it during the presentation. So with that we can move forward. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. This is, the project is Vistas at Bentz Farms, Planning Case 2014-18. Homestead Partners is the developer of this project. Property is located on th Galpin Boulevard, just north of West 78 Street on the west side. It actually consists of 3 parcels. There’s a vacant parcel in the northwest corner of the property and then the farmstead site on the south side and then homestead site in the central, north central portion of the property. The request is for a rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District to Residential Low and Medium Density. A condition use permit for development within the Bluff Creek corridor and preliminary plat with a variance for use of a private street creating 15 lots and 4 outlots with the dedication of public right-of-way. The Homestead Partners letter, memo that I provided to you is their response to the staff recommendations in the report. Most of this is technical details that will be resolved between preliminary and final plat. They have to provide us with additional information and so he’s trying to clarify that. They are working on the private street has an island area within it and they’re looking at whether or not they can continue to have that or because the design wasn’t clear as part of their submittal and so they’re asking if it’s a sunken design would the Fire Marshal allow that so we’re working that out with him. I did submit that to him for review and he hasn’t gotten back to me on that as of yet. The one item that I can clarify is the applicant was requesting some type of hybrid credit for the parks and recreation. I did contact the Parks Director and he said there’ll be no credit involved with this because Sugarbush Park is located a quarter mile north of this site and so the City has park facilities available. Also under the residential low and medium density, part of the intent is to preserve large areas of permanent open space. Upland areas of open space and that I’ll show as part of the review that they are providing that. In exchange they get smaller lot sizes for some of their development and so that’s the exchange we were looking at. So those were the two major issues. The areas currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, it’s really a holding category. To the north of it is the Fawn Hill development and that is zoned Single Family Residential. To the west, northwest is the Longacres development which is a Planned Unit Development Residential. Both of those are single family homes and then to the southwest is the Vasserman Ridge development and along that specific edge there are both single family homes and a twin home development. To the south is approved 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 th site plan for an apartment building on the south side of West 78 Street and then the land immediately th north of West 78 Street would be preserved as permanent open space. Across Galpin Boulevard to the east you have the Walnut Grove development which are single family homes on the, immediately adjacent to this project. The area is guided for residential low density uses which permits densities of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. This development comes in just under 2 units an acre on a net basis so it would be consistent with that. Also as part of the development they’re preserving the open space. The Bluff Creek headwaters area and that is another area that the City’s Comprehensive Plan is looking at preserving. There are several zoning categories that would be consistent with the low density. The RLM allows smaller lot sizes but we get the, again the permanent open space upland areas that are, the development are preserving so we are recommending that they rezone the property to RLM. The conditional use permit, it’s a little hard to see but the primary corridor follows the property line here and then along the Bluff Creek which is just on the south end of this development. It’s 50 feet out and includes some of the treed areas and so that whole area is the primary zone. It requires a 40 foot setback for structures from that. Conditional use permits are a way to preserve natural features in this corridor. We’ve been working on protecting Bluff Creek corridor from Highway 41 all the way down to the Minnesota River valley so as developments come in we take through this process and review it for consistency with that ordinance. We are recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to dedication of Outlot A to the City for permanent open space. The subdivision request. Again all of Outlot A is on the west side of the property and includes two areas of upland. This northern area has areas of bluff within it and then the southern area is surrounded by wetland on three sides and then the Bluff Creek itself comes along the south side so it’s an isolated area. There is an old farm road that they use, the farmer used to get out there and hay the area but there’s no development in that. The Bluff Creek corridor requires that this, the primary zone be preserved as permanent open space and no development except for the City has put some trails in the corridor but other than that it’ll remain natural. They’re creating 15 lots and 4 outlots. Three of the outlots are for potential future development when the, if the property to the north would ever come in they could through some kind of contractual agreement include portions of those outlots into their future developments to create full size lots. And they ghost platted the one lot to the north of this that would connect this development to the Fawn Hill development so long term when that area develops we want a continuous road system within that. The 4 southern lots, 1, 2, 3, 4 are served via the private street. Staff supports this because there’s a significant soil issues due to the wetland located in his back yard and they, we’re trying to force the houses farther away from that so they work out better for the future owners. And then they have the regular single family lots, the smaller, it’s about 75 foot average lot frontage. 50 is a minimum requirement so they’re exceeding all the minimums on each of these lots. And yes, future development. When they come in for a development they will be mass grading this site to put in the road system up to the end to create the building pads on both sides of the street and they’re looking at a berm along Galpin Boulevard here for these 4 or 5 houses that will be on this end. They also have two stormwater treatment areas for the development. This one is primarily, will be for the northern part of the site and this one will pick up the private street area in some of their rear yards. Utilities will be extended as part of this project. They go to the property line. They show how they would eventually link up at the end of Fawn Hill if this new property to the north ever comes in. Stormwater’s provided. Sanitary sewer. Water services. We did as part of our submittal process we did send a copy of the proposal to the Carver County Historic Society to get their input. They responded that while this house is not designated on the National Register that they wanted to come out and they actually went out and photographed the site to document it. I did talk with Wendy Biorn with the Historical Society. The significance of this is Henry Lyman was a, well he was the first postmaster of Chanhassen and he also was into propagating winter hardy plants. And then his son came in later and he was promoting agri-business within Carver County and Minnesota and specifically Grimm alfalfa. I did find out that Grimm’s farm house was actually preserved and restored and it’s at a Three Rivers Park now and was preserved through the use of State money. But there’s no specific proposal to preserve this site. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt motions recommending approval of the rezoning, the conditional use permit and the preliminary plat with variances for 15 single family lots within this development and then we’re being 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 specific on the single family lots because under RLM it permits other uses and so we want it within the development contract. And adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Bob with the RLM are we still within that 1.2 to 4? Generous: Yes. And I calculated it. Aanenson: Yeah it was under 2, correct? That’s what you said? Generous: Yes. Aller: Questions? Undestad: Comment for Bob. So this that came in now, the red line and the answers to a lot of the conditions on there, you’ve had. You guys have had communications with the applicant through all this? Generous: Yes I have. Undestad: Some of the issues he had on here were offering up something other than what was recommended so. Generous: Right. And as my discussions with staff members were a lot of them are technical details that we resolve later. They have to show that they’re doing the water treatment requirements or explain why they can’t do that and that takes a little more work on their part. It’s something that you usually don’t resolve at the preliminary level. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Any other questions from commissioners? Hokkanen: Bob so at this stage we don’t need to worry about the cul-de-sac? Or the island in the cul-de- sac at this stage? Isn’t that what you’re saying, we’re too early. Generous: (Yes). Hokkanen: Okay. Alright. Aller: That’s been submitted to the fire to take a look at. Generous: Correct. Aller: So the conditions right now would stand as in the report unless modified by the council. Any further questions? Hokkanen: I guess I do have another question Bob. With the road ending or the street, where is it? I don’t know where the page is. Where that ghost property, so the street, so it wouldn’t connect to Fawn Hill for years or, I mean is that property the ghost plat, is that the current farm that’s up there now? Generous: The horse stable, yes. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 Hokkanen: Yes, so I mean they may never. Generous: Correct. Hokkanen: So this may never or we’re talking 30 years never connect to Fawn Hill. Or until they. Aanenson: I guess the example I would give on that one would be Mr. Jerome Carlson’s property off of Kings Road. That plat went through and probably 10 years later we just did the southern part of that. We also ghost platted that and just kind of gave a layout. We wanted the street to go through so it’s not uncommon that we do that. Again you always try to plan ahead so you could lay that out. Hokkanen: Right. Aanenson: It may not come to fruition but we asked that they do that so they’ve accommodated that with this project. Hokkanen: If it ever could happen. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: Good questions. Okay, would the applicant like to make a presentation? Please state your name and address and representation for the record sir. Jeff Schoenwetter: Good evening. My name is Jeff Schoenwetter and I am with JMS Custom Homes and JMS will be the builder if this plat’s approved of many if not all of the homes. We have a brief power point that’s on your screen and I assume that if I push that, yep. One of these buttons will get it to move forward. First I want to thank your staff. They’ve worked very hard. We are the third or fourth developer that’s tried to bring this site forward. It’s a very challenging site due to several conditions that ironically we developed what you call Fawn Hill. The plat is actually Forest Meadow and the last time I had the privilege of being in front of the Planning Commission here in Chanhassen I think was 18 years ago. I didn’t have any gray hair then so here we are tonight. Our development entity is Homestead Partners and that’s an entity that the next generation of my family is doing land development with. We also have Charlie Wiemerslage, and Charlie I apologize for that, with Sather-Berquist with us tonight so if there’s any engineering questions, we can try to answer those. Braun has done all our soil studies out there and they’ve been extensive and as some of you know JMS Homes has been building in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods in your community for just about 30 years next summer so kind of fun to be back. At any rate, well that was the wrong button. Let’s try, that was definitely the wrong button. Well try again. There are only two left. Okay, we’ll use that one. So the, let’s see. How come that works for you? There we go. So there are 3 parcels here and they’re owned by 3 different related parties and we’ve been able to put all 3 together. We’ve blended the zoning because there were multiple zonings on the site and there are 2 existing homes and several out buildings that we intend to remove and we also are going to constrain curb cuts on Galpin significantly. That there will be one point of ingress and egress with very good sight lines. Should improve safety and visibility quite a bit. The site you saw earlier, and that is our previous plat there, Fawn Hill Court which is our cul-de-sac to the north and it may take me another 10 or 20 years if I’m back but I don’t know that we’ll ever get these street connections all put together but at the request of staff we did conceive a ghost plat. There’s a lot of wetland on the site as you’ve heard. The engineering of both water table and soil conditions I think presented significant challenges for the previous developers. We seem to have had a little bit of success in working through that by reducing our density by over 5 units from what otherwise would be a conforming plat. So by any measure this is a very low density project and naturally as you can imagine we wish we could as a practical way put more home sites on here. We just don’t think that it’s practical to do all the soils work 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 that it would take and it really would change the character of the site which we’re very excited about. They’re going to be very special homes looking out over very large vistas and I think they’re going to be some very lucky families that enjoy living here. As you can see the vast majority of the ownership of this site is, as I said there were 3 owners, is going to become dedicated open space and that’s a big deal and you’ve read in our staff at Homestead’s rebuttal to some of the park and park fee issues, we’ll continue working that out and I’m sure we’ll have it resolve with staff before we get down field. The other issue based on the setback from the creek is the size of the cul-de-sac. You are the only city that I’ve experienced that has a 60 foot radius standard city street radius cul-de-sac design on a private driveway and we’re trying to be creative and we’re trying to find some ways to not create a lot of hard cover. A lot of rain runoff. It doesn’t really make sense but our engineers and the staff at Homestead are working diligently with your staff following the rules. I’m hoping that we can find something that’s more aesthetically pleasing for the residents of this neighborhood because as a practical reality it’s our opinion that cul-de-sac is ridiculously large. We look forward to a great project. You can look forward to some great homes with a high quality builder and a very low density neighborhood so if there are any questions I’d love to answer them. Otherwise I was upstaged by a very thorough report from your staff. Aller: Great, any questions? Thank you for the presentation. Jeff Schoenwetter: Thank you kindly. Aller: And we appreciate you coming in and working with staff because it’s very important that we’re all on the same page as we move forward so thank you. Jeff Schoenwetter: They’re very well informed and very helpful. Thank you. Aller: Okay with that I’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting regarding this matter. Anyone wishing to come forward and speak either for or against this item can do so or ask questions. Welcome again sir. Tim Paine: Thank you. Aller: Could you state your name and address again for the record please. Tim Paine: That was my first question. Yeah, Tim Paine. 2345 Fawn Hill Court. Aller: Thank you Mr. Paine. Tim Paine: A number of my questions were alluded to at least for answers in the preceding presentation one of which, I don’t know if you can see it with that camera or not. It’s actually part of one of your slides. As you noted that Outlot A. I saw A, B and D I believe were some of the outlots that were noted here. One that we pointed to but it’s not noted on this here is this portion right here. It’s known as preserved open space. It doesn’t say anything about permanence and it doesn’t say anything about it being part of an outlot. Is it contiguous across here or how is that being…? Generous: The plat shows it all as Outlot A. Tim Paine: This whole portion here? Generous: Everything, yes. Everything that’s not in the lots is in that Outlot A. Tim Paine: Okay. It’s not bounded by this portion here? 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 Generous: No, that’s just the underlying ownership pattern. Tim Paine: So could you define that for me a little bit. It’s preserved wetland. To what extent, of what permanence does that have when it comes to that sort of thing. Was that, never be developed? Generous: With the City taking ownership. Tim Paine: That’s the way it sits? Aanenson: (Yes). Tim Paine: Okay. Considering that my neighbor and I live right behind there, that was our first biggest question. The other question I had was you mentioned, the Chairman mentioned a letter to the Planning th Commission on June 12. Will that be part of the record on the website that we’ll be able to see? Aller: You will. Tim Paine: And will that nice presentation be part of that too from the developer as well? Jeff Schoenwetter: Here’s a copy of the letter and on the second from the last page there’s… Tim Paine: Okay. I’ll share this with the folks there because that’s the questions I have. I think most of the rest of them, considering that this meeting is to focus on the rezoning of this areas here and the trade- off I was looking for was that permanence that you’ve already talked about. That’s fine. The other questions I have deal more with traffic flow and things like that but that’s best left to the City Council meeting I take it? Aller: Okay, or if you have questions I’m fine with a dialogue today so that you can present, we can have a record that’s built so the City Council can have an opportunity to hear concerns. That’s what we’re here for. Tim Paine: The question I would have and the concern I would have with regard to traffic flow in that area is that the speed at which traffic comes by there, the rise and drop of the hill that is Galpin from the th stop sign down to 78 Street and where that will be positioned, which at this point appears to be right about where there’s a fire hydrant at that location. Leaves a significant blind spot, and especially to the north. As far as any traffic existing from there, unless there would be a significant change to the contour of the grading at that point you’d be looking at people inching out and inching out before they would be able to zip out there. That’s my belief from having walked there quite a bit. Yeah right there. That’s a question I would have is just that someone would take that into consideration in that, in looking at that and literally sitting there at rough grade anyway, what you would think would be in a family sedan as opposed to a pick-up truck that’s got a lot higher sight lines. Something that you’re looking out to that north side out your left hand window. What kind of view do you have for oncoming traffic? That would be the only other question I had that I noted on there with regard to that because it’s a question that I think that should be addressed as far as I like the commentary earlier about planning ahead and making sure that that’s taken into consideration. The only other point I wanted to make, I had some pictures that I unfortunately did not get a chance to move from my phone to the, to a stick so I could show them but the degree to which the water builds up in there, especially early in May when we had the significant rains. The drainage system that’s in place right now would have to be very robust to hold what we saw, we witnessed there as far as flow from Bluff Creek that filled in that wetland area. It is very well used by Mother Nature if you will with regard to that containment. All the flow from the rain gutters, or the storm 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 drains in our neighborhood goes right to the back side of that current horse property area so any sort of drainage that’s coming off and into that area is significant and is going to need to be handled aggressively I guess is the best way to put it so that’s my concerns and my considerations I’d like to ask the council to look into. Aller: Great, thank you. Tim Paine: Thank you. Aller: You want to address the permit? Fauske: I’d like to thank Mr. Paine for his very thoughtful questions. First with regards to traffic, I’m quite certain the sight line at Galpin was taken a look at but we will certainly clarify that and get that clarified for council as they consider the preliminary plat application. With regards to stormwater runoff, we did have a very wet spring and as the developer alluded to there’s quite a bit of soils in there that are saturated. When a development is, the ponding is designed for a development they do take a look at the off site drainage as well so it’s not just taking a look at the runoff from the site but looking at the runoff from the whole area as well and making sure they have provided enough storage in the stormwater ponds to accommodate that runoff both within the development and off site. Aller: Great. And it’s my understanding because of the reduced density we have a much better chance of making sure that there aren’t problems out there. There’s less hard cover. Fauske: Correct, there would be less hard cover under this scenario than if they added additional lots. Aller: Great. Thank you. I see someone else coming forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Myron Marcotte: Hi. Myron Marcotte, 7240 Galpin Boulevard. Aller: Welcome Mr. Marcotte. Myron Marcotte: I’m the owner of the ghost plat. Just a number of small questions. There’s currently a shared driveway on the, and the boundary of one of the lots in our property. There was some discussion in here about potentially vacating that easement that exists today and just curious as to whether that can happen with a permit or not down the road. Aller: I don’t think, is it, it’s not intended at this time is it to vacate it? Aanenson: I’m sorry I was just looking through your easement. If you could clarify what your, so the fact that you’re sharing the driveway? Myron Marcotte: The driveway that heads to the horse barn. Aanenson: Correct. Myron Marcotte: Right to the, I guess south of that there’s an easement between the two of our properties where I think it’s 30 feet on each of our properties so that to the extent that down the road anything was ever built in the upland that they had access to it. So my question is, if the upland is being dedicated down the road let’s say to the City, would the easement be vacated so that that property in essence. I’m not saying we would ever build on the 30 feet but if you know what I mean. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 Aanenson: We can certainly look into that. If there was no purpose for it, it could be vacated but we’d just verify that. That’s something we’d follow up between now and City Council. Myron Marcotte: Okay. Aanenson: So thank you for bringing that to our attention. Fauske: Mr. Chair if I may ask for clarification on page 10 of the staff report there is mention of a driveway easement. Is that the one that you’re referring to sir? Myron Marcotte: Yes. Fauske: Okay, thank you. Alright. Myron Marcotte: Secondly I know that there’s, and I didn’t follow it completely but there’s a lot of trees in the properties we’re talking about. There’s a number of them along the road but there’s some additional trees in the areas that would be built upon. Is it contemplated that those trees all go away or is there any way to tell which trees would stay and which ones would go away in the areas that would be built on? Aller: And I think it’s on page 10. Generous: It’s one of the attachments shows the area of tree removal and basically yes. All the middle part of the site where the homes are going to be built would lose their trees. There would be the buffer preserved along Galpin Boulevard that would remain and the stuff in the Bluff Creek corridor. Myron Marcotte: Okay, that’s sort of what I contemplated from looking at it but I guess is that typical where there’s quite a large number of mature trees in those areas and they would all go away is what we’re saying? Generous: Yes within the grading limits they would all go away, yeah. Aller: I think the City itself, it’s our policy and the commission has always pushed to maintain any mature vegetation, trees, landscaping that’s out there. So that’s taken into consideration by staff when it looks at these plans and that’s why on the previous item we had the drip line and there were movements and changes based on the fact that there were existing, there were existing tree lines and that’s done here too. The trees from what I’m looking at, look like when they grade they’re going to have to remove the certain vegetation and certain trees to grade but those that can be left are being left. Aanenson: Yeah. Mr. Chair for clarification. Aller: And it’s set out in the plan. Aanenson: You can see what’s in red there. Those are, most of those are on the northeast corner adjacent to Galpin will be the trees to be removed. You can see there’s a few around the farmstead, which there hasn’t been many but those would be the ones removed. So you can see the existing on the left. On the right would be the ones to be removed so you can see where, can you see where your barn is on there? Myron Marcotte: Yes. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 Aanenson: Yeah, so it’s. Myron Marcotte: I’m sorry are there any on the right, from the new lake to the right in that picture that. Aanenson: That will be preserved. Myron Marcotte: Okay, but nothing to the right of that right now looks like it’s preserved other than the line out by the road. Aanenson: Correct. Myron Marcotte: Okay. Last question. Aanenson: Let me just clarify there too. So there is a replacement plan that’s required too and that is in the staff report. So there’s a requirement to ratio when you remove trees that there’s a tree replacement plan and that is a condition in the staff report too. Myron Marcotte: Are they located on those same lots or where would they be located? Aanenson: Yes. They would be located. Generous: Well each lot would get their own tree and then any additional trees would be provided throughout the site. Actually I think that came in later. Aller: So on page 10 of 17 of the staff report I show proposed that there are 22 existing trees on the north half of the buffer plus 30 overstory in a row and 2 overstory trees, 4 understory trees, 11 shrubs, plus 6 existing preserved trees and the applicant will construct berms. Okay. I don’t know whether that answers your question but we make an effort to make sure that it’s repopulated. Myron Marcotte: Okay. Last question. The trail that runs along Galpin, crosses the road at the stop sign on Brinker Road and our driveway is one of the 4 stops at corners there. Is there any contemplation that the trail would ever move to the other side? I know it’s kind of dangerous there but whether it crosses over and continues on and then actually crosses back over. This was one of the points in the discussion on the previous development but this, from what I read didn’t contemplate moving the trail back to the south side. I guess the west side of the road right? It didn’t. Generous: Not as part of this development, no. We are providing internally they’ll have a sidewalk system to bring them up to the back side of the park. Sugarbush. Potentially with Galpin Boulevard upgraded in the future, you know it’s Carver County that will have to determine that. Myron Marcotte: Okay. Okay, thank you. Aller: Any further public questions or comments? Yes sir. Tim Paine: Mr. Marcotte brought something to mind. There is an existing trail that’s in the dedicated area that’s going to the City that comes off of Moccasin I believe and on around the back side over there. It goes part way into the open area. I was wondering if there’s any plan to dedicate that even further because to Mr. Marcotte’s point also on the trail that’s on Galpin there is a portion that comes up from th 78 and it kind of stops so it would be a good idea to maybe make that contiguous because there are people crossing going back and forth to do that whole loop around that area. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 Generous: Correct. Mr. Chairman, if you would, we did discuss that with the Parks Director and he looked at it and they decided not to continue that because of the open channeled areas out there. They’d have to put a bridging system in place and so it really didn’t make sense to continue that. Tim Paine: Because it seems like they bridged some of it with culverts already, or at least to an extent. I was just curious what it would take to get it to whatever that other terminus is on that other side to the southwest I guess it would be. Generous: Yes but that’s something we brought up and he said that they didn’t want to pursue that any further. Tim Paine: Okay, great. Thank you very much. Aller: Yes Ma’am. Wendy Peterson Biorn: Hi. My name is Wendy Peterson Biorn. I’m from the Carver County Historical Society. Aller: Welcome. Wendy Peterson Biorn: And I just wanted to thank the City and Bob especially for taking us into consideration and consulting with us and it’s been a real pleasure working with Bob and allowing us to document the property. I suppose I should be thanking the builder for allowing us to go out there and document the property before everything is gone so basically I’m here just to thank everybody for that. And also I’m not sure if a federal agency’s involved because of the wetland but if it is Section 106 would kick in and I am certified there so I can probably help with that and be more than willing to help with that. As you have open land and trail, if it’s possible we would love to put up a, some type of a sign commemorating Lyman’s contribution to the Grimm Alfalfa project because he really did do a lot in bringing it public by contacting the University of Minnesota and otherwise so, but that’s the reason I’m here. Just basically to offer that and thank Bob. Aller: Thank you and thank you for all you and your association do for us. Aanenson: Mr. Chair I just wanted to add. We didn’t put this in the staff report but our latest Comprehensive Plan we did add a Resource Protection section and in that section we do talk about recognizing those properties so, putting a marker on there or something we think would be appropriate and we can work with the developer on that but again the City’s process for this is that we would work with the Carver County Historical Society as our agency to do that so we did, Bob made that contact and worked to that to get all the documentation but I think that would be something that our plan encourages to just somehow just mark that property and for further information they can go to the other Grimm property to get the details. Aller: Anyone else? Seeing no one come forward, I’ll close the public hearing portion. Open it for commissioner comments. Lot to digest. Hokkanen: I would like some clarification on this easement between the horse property and the developer’s property and what this little paragraph essentially means. I can’t quite understand what could or could not happen. So they may apply for vacation of it or they’re not intending to? Aanenson: Oh the easement you’re talking about. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 Hokkanen: The easement. Aanenson: Yes, yes. Right now it appears that it’s a private easement between the two parties. Hokkanen: Okay. Aanenson: So really for them to negotiate. We would look to see if there’s any public interest in that easement. Hokkanen: Oh, okay. Aanenson: But if it’s to get to the back of the property I think the concern was that, would that continue that someone would try to get back there using that easement so we would look at how, what the terms of that would be with this plat. And if I may I just want to make one other clarification. Bob kept saying smaller lots. These are rather large lots. They’re 15,000. There’s only one that’s under 15,000 and the frontages, the frontages are smaller and that’s in order to accommodate the complexity out there but again this developer came in with the least amount of lots that we’ve seen. As he said we’ve worked through 3 or 4 different developers so, and in meeting the intent of the ordinance was preservation. Getting the smaller frontages but still meeting that 15,000. Again there’s only one lot that’s under that and that’s in excess of our standard RSF zoning district so I just wanted to clarify when he kept saying smaller lots, he meant smaller frontages because they’re actually, to get the size house that the developer and the price point the developer is going for you would need a much larger lot to accomplish that. Aller: Great. Thank you for the clarification and I think Bob did mention the smaller to me meant the decrease in the number for the density and not the size of the lot but. Sir please if you have something additional to say. Jeff Schoenwetter: Yeah Jeff Schoenwetter. Aller: We’ll re-open the public hearing portion so that you can do that. Jeff Schoenwetter: The easement in question is a, there’d be no reason that we would show that on our plat because when we record the plat we’ll be extinguishing that benefit and the easement’s not a reciprocal easement. The easement is the parcel to the north, the horse property is burdened by that easement and I can’t imagine why that property owner would object to us vacating that easement. If they do we’ll leave it in place but it’s of no benefit to us and it really serves no public purpose and it isn’t a public easement at this time so from our standpoint our engineers and surveyors would contemplate that that easement be extinguished at the time that the plat’s recorded. I hope that brings clarity. Aller: Thank you. Okay once again I’ll close the public hearing. Any further comments? Questions? Discussion. Hokkanen: One more question. Aller: Yes. Hokkanen: Do we know the price point of these development of these homes? Aanenson: He did show it on one of his slides but he didn’t elaborate on it. Hokkanen: Oh, I missed it. Sorry. Okay. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 Yusuf: I think it was $500,000 to $750,000. Aanenson: $500,000 to $750,000, yes. Aller: Alright, any other conversation, communication. Discussion. Hokkanen: Very thorough report. Aller: Yeah it was a great report. Very thorough. Good questions from the audience and the individuals that were involved so brought a lot of issues that can be looked at and examined before City Council makes it’s final decision and with that I’ll entertain any motions. Yusuf: Okay, I’ll make the motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate (A2) to Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM), the conditional use permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek corridor, and preliminary plat approval for 15 lots, 4 outlots, and public right-of-way with variances for the use of a private street for single family detached subdivision subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion before me. Do I have a second? Campion: Second. Aller: I have a second. So a motion by Commissioner Yusuf, seconded by Commissioner Campion. Any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Campion seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Residential-Low & Medium Density (RLM); a Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Corridor; and Preliminary Plat for 15 lots, 4 outlots and public right of way with Variances for the use of a private street for a single-family detached subdivision subject to the following conditions; and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Rezoning 1.The rezoning shall apply only to the platted lots within Vistas at Bentz Farms and exclude the outlots. Conditional Use Permit 2.Dedicate Outlot A to the City. Subdivision Building Official Conditions 1. Provide a 1:200 “clean” plat drawing. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 2. Demolition permits are required for the removal of any existing structures. 3. Buildings may be required to be designed by an architect and/or engineer as determined by the Building Official. 4. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 5. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 6. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 7. The applicant and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Engineering Conditions 1.The title survey must show all existing easements on Parcel 3. 2.The developer’s engineer must check the accuracy of the scale shown on the plan sheets. 3.The final plan submittal must show the proposed elevation at the proposed building corners. 4.Proposed lots shall be graded to drain away from building locations. 5.The grading plan must show proposed elevations at the center of the proposed driveway at the curb line. 6.The grading plans shall be revised to show the elevation of the Emergency Overflow (EOF). 7.The nearby building openings must be a minimum of one foot above the EOF elevation. 8.The plans must identify proposed stockpile areas. 9.The developer’s engineer must work with City staff to revise the grading plan to either divert or collect the runoff at the northeast corner of the property. 10.The developer’s engineer shall work with City staff to evaluate the condition of the culverts in the Galpin Boulevard ditch and their capacity to carry additional stormwater runoff from this property. 11.The grading must be revised such that water is not directed to run over the top of the retaining wall. 12.The retaining wall must be designed by a professional engineer registered in the state of Minnesota. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 13.The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured in place concrete (stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties and timber. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. 14.A Homeowners Association (HOA) must be created to take ownership and maintenance responsibility of the retaining wall and any drain tile that will cross property lines. 15.The final set of plans must show the proposed name for the private street. 16.The plans shall be revised to show the center of the private cul-de-sac as paved street, not a raised center island. 17.Curb and gutter are required for the private street. 18.At the intersection with Fawn Hill Road, the curbs must have a radius for vehicle turns instead of the 90-degree angle shown. 19.The engineering department’s preference would be to remove the farm drives and the culverts underneath them. The developer’s engineer shall work with Carver County staff to accomplish this. 20.The proposed watermain pipe shall by C900. 21.The developer’s engineer will ensure that CBMH-A4 does not conflict with the nearby watermain. 22.An assessment for the Lake Ann Interceptor improvements from 2003 is outstanding for this property. The principal of $187.50 must be paid or reassessed to the individual lots at the time of final plat. 23.An assessment for water and sewer improvements from 2002 is outstanding. The principal of $38,922.00 must be paid or reassessed to the individual lots at the time of final plat. 24.Water and sewer partial hook-ups are due at the time of final plat. The partial hook-up fees will be assessed at the rate in effect at that time. Fire Marshal Conditions 1.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 2.Prior to combustible construction, fire hydrants must be made serviceable. 3.Temporary street signs shall be installed prior to and during construction. 4.Prior to combustible construction, fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable. 5.No burning permits will be issued for trees, brush that is removed. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 6.The center island in the proposed cul-du-sac is not allowed. 7.Submit proposed private street name to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Building Official for review and approval. 8.An additional fire hydrant will be required at the northwest corner of Galpin Boulevard and Fawn Hill Road. 9.“No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required on the east side of the private drive/road. Spacing shall be 75 feet, wording on both sides of posts. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for more information if needed. Natural Resource Specialist Conditions 1.Tree protection fencing will be required at the edge of grading limits near any preserved trees. It shall be installed prior to grading. 2.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the types and locations of proposed bufferyard plantings. 3.The applicant shall remove all hazard and diseased trees in the bufferyard area prior to final acceptance of the completed development. Parks Conditions 1.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected at the time of final plat recording. Planning Conditions 1.The applicant shall revise the lot width of Lot 2 to meet the 100-foot lot width at the building setback line, which is 25 feet from the private street easement line. 2.The applicant needs to calculate the lot areas of Lots 1 through 4 excluding the lot area encompassed within the private street easement. 3.Lots within the development are limited to single-family detached homes. Water Resource Specialist Conditions 1.The developers engineer shall work with staff to provide more clear and concise demarcation of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the setback from the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 2.The Bluff Creek Overlay District boundary shall be demarcated with appropriate signage at all points of intersection with lot lines and at all major angle points. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 3.That portion of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and applicable setback disturbed for site grading shall be vegetated in native vegetation and a planting plan and schedule shall be provided. 4.Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. 5.The 2% swale behind Lots 13 and 14 shall have a drain tile installed as part of the site grading and utility installation. This shall be included before final plat approval. 6.The pond designs shall include either the installation of forebays as described in the City’s Surface Water Management Plan or provide for the installation of environmental manholes or 4-foot or deeper sump manholes with a SAFL baffle at the last CBMH at station 21+00 and at the CBMH located at the end of the private road. 7.A comprehensive stand-alone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of the NPDES construction permit shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment before final plat approval. 8.The applicant must demonstrate the feasibility of alternate methods of volume reduction to justify the absence of any volume reducing management practices as is currently proposed before final plat approval. 9.The applicant must comply with the requirements of all other jurisdictional agencies with authority over the project area. 10.Surface Water Management connection charges are estimated to be $54,172.00. This connection charge will be due at the time of final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 20, 2014 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: th Aanenson: On Monday, May 27 the City Council approved the revocation of the conditional use permits. The three that we had. They also approved Next Step Learning Center. I think that permit’s underway and they’re out working on that project. Also the Black Walnut Acres, the one lot split with the outlot. And then they approved the, oh they tabled, actually tabled the. Aller: Rezoning. Aanenson: Rezoning, yes. And actually in hind sight, they’re going to withdraw that rezoning. They’ll th plat that property for West 78 Street. You’ll see that coming back. That was left off in order not to hold up the subdivision to the rear so that action was actually tabled. Other action for you, for your future stth Planning Commission items. We do not have a meeting on July 1 because that’s the 4 of July week and th I know that’s hard to get a quorum so, but we do have an item on for July 15 and that is a variance. In addition to that we’re going to give an update on the stormwater management plan. Looking what the watershed districts are doing so we’ll have our Water Resources Coordinator here for that. We do have 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014 th an application coming in, a commercial application on August 19 from Villages on the Pond so that sign’s been up there. The northeast corner of Lake Drive. That would be a commercial little strip mall so that will be in. Met with them today so they’re shooting to get that in within the next month. There’s a couple other things that are floating out there right now so I think we’ll have a busy fall so, but again so th we won’t have a meeting on August 5 either so wanted to let you know that. And then also I handed out for the commissioners, the Land Use Planning workshops. I know some of you have been to those. Those are great and I know our new commissioner may be interested. The days are sometimes weekdays and obviously some of them are further away but if you’re interested in those I’d go ahead and register you. Anybody that’s interested in attending one of those, that would be great. I always think it’s good to hear from another source. While we try to do training, if you have the opportunity to get it through this group they do a good job so. Aller: Great. So we should email you directly if we were interested? Aanenson: Yes, if you were interested in those, yes. If you’re interested in that. nd Aller: Alright so those of you out there taking a look, there’s no meeting on July 2, which is the Tuesday before the Chanhassen celebration so get your yard work done and make sure you get out there thrdth for the 4 of July celebrations which will be the 3 and the 4. And they’re always great. And then th August 5 we don’t have a meeting for the National Night Out so take the time to talk to your neighbors and maybe join in and do a meeting on your cul-de-sacs. With that I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 20